We have about 150,000 schools in the U.S. At just two armed guards per school (which is probably a low estimate), heís talking about 300,000 new government employees. Say the average cost per employee, including benefits, is $50,000 per year, thatís $15,000,000,000 per year. $15 Billion!

Of course, what about all the day care centers, movie theaters, malls etc? Donít the poor young children at day care deserve protection, too? And the others?

Of course there is an obvious solution. Once we hire hundreds of thousands new guards for all these places, we wonít be able to afford public schools any longer, so we could then fire hundreds of thousands of teachers and guards, swell our unemployment ranks, and unemployment payments, and Ö

Your basic error is thinking this through. Thinking implies education, which in turn suggests something slightly left of Genghis Khan, therefore communist. That puts you slightly to the right of Obama, who is the anti-christ, obviously. Therefore you're wrong, on every issue, and the NRA are correct.

To check your own reading comprehension, please see again what I wrote:

My reading comprehension is obviously better than your memory. These are your words:

"Like... Spoons? Wink

EDIT: But seriously, does anyone finds it surprising that idiots bent on mass murder come to the party with weapons intended for... well, mass murder?"

The rest of what you said is blather to obfuscate..

There is no other way to read this other than you believe inanimate objects were designed to be used for murder.. an action which can only be specified and effected by the people who carry them. Soldiers.

How many men in your family tree did you just call a murderer for simply following the orders of their civilian leadership as they fought and died for wars past?

I must admit the rushing to hire a load of armed guards for schools seems terminally insane for various reasons, not least of which is that poorly trained and inadequately vetted guards might pose a larger risk to children than the occasional deranged nutter. How many students will be 'accidentally' shot through mistaken identity, trigger happy guards, high school pranks etc before it is realised just what a bad idea it is? The guard will be the first to be sought out and shot by gun toting weirdos anyway, so what are you going to arm him with, another assault rifle so the two can have fun sniping at each other across the playground?

Answering guns with more guns just doesn't seem to be the answer but it's not my country so I'll pipe down again.

I read some numbers earlier I'll quote here.. 131. That's the number of people who died at schools since Columbine.. which happened at the height of our assault weapon ban which disgustingly is the primary vehicle to prevent further shootings being called for by our politicians to prevent future shootings. 131.. I doubt we'd have that many "accidents" of trained guards accidentally shooting anyone.. other than the occasional police shooting gone bad, none of the.. must be a million of them in our country?.. are accidentally shooting kids. And police and other law enforcement work in much more stressful situations. So no, I don't at all think we need worry about accidental shootings.

You're entire scenario was meant to be provocative.. but it did bring up an area of merit. Answering guns with guns.. has been deemed by all of our societies to be appropriate at times. But you're right, it cannot be our only or even primary response. We didn't have these problems 50 years ago.. or 30. Mass shootings are a fairly new phenomenon which my guess is done because the person is crying out.. Crying out for the 100-200 million viewers of the news shows which talk about THEM, discuss THEIR life, and airs their grievances fro them. The more the news gives such attention, the more we'll see of this.

The most obvious answer and the answer which will take the most work and affect the most people.. is to determine the cause of violence. We have to address the violence. Even if we wanted to outlaw guns and did it yesterday, it would be 100 years or more before there was any effect.. And keep in mind, not a single politician is calling for guns to be entirely outlawed as per the UK or even Australia model. What they're calling for is a repeat of a failed assault weapons ban.. which doesn't bad assault weapons but instead bans bayonet lugs, collapsible stocks, threaded barrels, etc.

The NRA response we KNOW will have some effect on school shooters. Most likely they'll go to a mall, or a ballgame, or a church of some other gun free zone. The gun control opposition is only talking about repeating a failed assault weapons ban. Why? Because that's their priority. Not the kids. Or in the case of the good folks of opposition on this forum, perhaps the kids are their priority.. but they're not educating themselves and will ultimately let the kids down until they do.

Training and arming teachers who carry concealed is a much cheaper program. I'd guess most would pay for their training themselves and we wouldn't have to pay extra salaries, but I would recommend a bonus pay of some type. Every city already has a place they train police.. they can/should go through the shooting, ethics, and legal portions of the academy for much less.. perhaps the largest recurring expense would be quarterly qualifications, something they could do with the police. I read several places that teachers and law enforcement are having trouble talking to each other.. this would be a good way to get them together. Task them with training the teachers.

I'm assuming you haven't had a chance to read my past.. so I'll answer this. Mostly because it's a very good question.

If we go back 20-25 years ago.. can you guess where the term "assault weapons" came from? Politicians. There was a long standing ban on importing surplus military weapons from other countries.. and I forget who it was, but it was lifted. I want to say Bush Sr.. but not sure. All of a sudden we had boatloads, hundreds of thousands of AK-47's converted to meet the few restrictions they'd left intact.. Semi-auto only was the big one. So all these guns, cheap ammo, parts kids.. they flooded our country. At this time the AR was only sold by a few companies as the licensing was restricted.. so they were more expensive then (over $1000) they are now.

I remember going to gun shows (at the time I was running my own gun business so I'd advertise there) and watching some pretty sketchy looking guys.. they fit the "bubba" or "redneck" stereotypes which btw I don't believe in using stereotypes.. these guys were loading pallet loads of AK's and ammo into trucks. Every gun show, which at the time had no background checks or registration.. because they were used guns don'tcha know.. was offloading tens of thousands of these. I bought several of historical significance (AK's are made in many countries, some makes are better than others, some have history behind them) myself for I think $75 and $60 each. 1000 rounds of 7.62x39mm was going for less than $60.. The glory days of the AK..

A ban was put back in effect.. supplies dried up.. but the streets were full of cheap weapons designed for war. Assault Weapon became the term of choice during the politics of dealing with this mess.

Interesting side note. There are estimated to be between 5-10 million of these and much more ammo.. in enclaves, camps, and other militia encampments all over this country.. most buried and protected.. It wouldn't be hard for any low-rent militia to flood the streets of any big city with enough AK's to cause major problems.. and such tactics have been found in manifestos and doctrines since discovered.

So that's where the term assault weapon came from.

Today it's used to discuss any of the almost 100 weapons banned during the assault weapons ban, and of course any "black or military" looking gun...

The democrats weren't serious about gun control when they voted in the last ban.. who in their right mind thinks bayonet lugs, threaded barrels, or collapsible stocks change the basic function of a weapon? It doesn't. Meanwhile, we have million of legit sporting arms which "function" identically to the so called "assault weapon" and are just as dangerous in the wrong hands. As I've been saying all along, most modern guns are functionally so close together they don't warrant any real distinction when it comes to killing. It's ironic that the same minor features (such as collapsible stocks, detachable mags, etc) that make a weapon ideal for self-defence.. also makes them ideal for offence. The most dangerous "weapon" in existence is the human mind.. and that's the only thing that makes a gun be used legally and for legit purposes.. or not.

We also had a rash of "designer" weapon companies.. some made the infamous Tec-9's made popular in 1990ish gangster movies with drug dealers, armed body guards with gold chains, and the like. For $125 you could have a semi-auto that looked a lot like a machine pistol.. where in actual function it was a real piece of shi* and wasn't as useful as Barny Fife's revolver. Lorican is another.. there I think were 25 of these companies. The NRA and supporters put them down by refusing to buy cheap inferior projects.. bad for business..

So there you have it. "Assault Weapon" is a political term and currently defines one of the banned weapons of the last bans bill.. it will change if we have another ban.. unless they haven't learned..

I read some numbers earlier I'll quote here.. 131. That's the number of people who died at schools since Columbine..

There are 10,000 to 12,000 gun homicides per year in the U.S. Everyone seems to be fixated on your 10 per year average, while ignoring the other 10,000 to 12,000 yearly gun homicides. Why? Don't the other 100,000 plus lives also warrant some attention?

Stick to what you know, Steve. Guns are a long way from being "entirely outlawed" in Australia. Check the details here . We have rules about who can own what kind of gun, with precise definitions - nothing wobbly like "assault weapon" - but if I wanted to hunt or target shoot I could get hold of a suitable gun without much difficulty provided I joined a gun club and installed secure storage.

Ken.. notice I put "or even the Australia model.." Prefaced by "entirely banned?"

I've spent a lot of time studying the gun laws, gun control, circumstances, history, of many countries.. it sometimes helps to step out of a specific environment and look at others.

Can you get an AR-15 style rifle? How about a Ruger Mini-14? (Ar style rifle in sheeps clothing) Armalite AR-10? Or a M14? And can you shoot it on your own property without owning a gun club? And can you get handguns?

There are 10,000 to 12,000 gun homicides per year in the U.S. Everyone seems to be fixated on your 10 per year average, while ignoring the other 10,000 to 12,000 yearly gun homicides. Why? Don't the other 100,000 plus lives also warrant some attention?

A good question. Over half that figure as we've referenced in this thread elsewhere was from suicides.. and no one really wants to get involved with the choice of suicide where gun control is concerned.. the obvious answer is they push for my medical induced suicides which is another bag of worms.. so they hide in the gun stats. Almost all the other half is gang related which is directly tied to the war on drugs.. something else politicians don't want to talk about.

Ken.. notice I put "or even the Australia model.." Prefaced by "entirely banned?"

Can you get an AR-15 style rifle? How about a Ruger Mini-14? (Ar style rifle in sheeps clothing) Armalite AR-10? Or a M14? And can you shoot it on your own property without owning a gun club? And can you get handguns?

Tell us more about the secure storage..

What you wrote is what I quoted. You referred to guns being "entirely outlawed" under the "UK or even the Australia model". Not sure where you get the word "banned".

I am not sure about the purpose of your questions. If you know the answers, why ask the questions? If you don't, you will have to do your own research. The link I provided will be a good starting point - complemented by your detailed knowledge of different makes of gun, which I don't share and which I don't consider necessary to participate in the discussion. What you can get depends on who you are, what kind of weapon it is, and how you propose to use it. I didn't suggest there are no restrictions in Australia - only that guns are not "entirely outlawed".

OTOH, your intent is to demonstrate the extent of your knowledge, then I would have been more than happy to take that as read if you hadn't implied you thought that guns were entirely outlawed in Australia, which is not the case.

Here is a starting point for research on your question about storage requirements. They vary by State, which is not ideal, but we do have a federal system.

A good question. Over half that figure as we've referenced in this thread elsewhere was from suicides.. and no one really wants to get involved with the choice of suicide where gun control is concerned.. the obvious answer is they push for my medical induced suicides which is another bag of worms.. so they hide in the gun stats. Almost all the other half is gang related which is directly tied to the war on drugs.. something else politicians don't want to talk about.

Start breaking down the numbers and you'll get really pissed off..

Hi Steve,

So what you seem to be suggesting is that, when it involves gangs and desperate people, guns are a good thing ...?Just asking, because I'm puzzled by your defence of rampant (leading to inappropriately used) proliveration of guns, which would rather be, recreation?

BTW, a few clicks in Google reveals that a little over half of the gang related assaults and homicides in the USA are inter-racial, so I'm not sure which race and business activity statistics bracket you belong to that would explain your need to use a firearm for self-defence..., unless you only 'need' it for recreation. Annoying indeed.

It's quite clear that I differentiated between the UK and Australia when I said "calling for guns to be entirely outlawed as per the UK or even the Australia model." For the sake of this discussion I see absolutely zero difference between "outlawed" and "banned." It's the same thing. So to help you with the reading: outlawed as per the UK OR EVEN the Australia model. Which means outlawed or severely restricted. Why you quibble to the point of distraction about a sentence whose meaning is clear to most anybody is something I don't wish to speculate.

But I do find your OTOH remark not well written because I don't understand what the heck you mean. You start off with a 100% wrong assumption "your intent is to demonstrate your knowledge" (my intent was to answer a question directly asked and whose answer benefits everyone participating in the discussion. It's a key point, oft misunderstood) but the rest of your sentence is scrambled no? Clear it up for us.

"which I don't share and which I don't consider necessary to participate in the discussion."

Sure, detailed knowledge of firearms isn't required to participate in this discussion.. heck, some have insulted, baited, name called, and been quite rude based on no knowledge whatsoever, which is why it's so easy to let it go. But you stated earlier "but if I wanted to hunt or target shoot I could get hold of a suitable gun without much difficulty provided I joined a gun club and installed secure storage."

So you won't mind telling me how one develops a "need" for hunting or target shooting, something according to your link you MUST be able to provide? And what does a "gun club" cost in Australia? Is a need satisfied by "I'd like to take a hunting trip up north" or must you show you need the meat to subsist? Who decides your.. well.. we can't call it a 'right", so lets call change that to "who gives you permission or allows you to own a firearm by acceptance, or not, of your "need?"

My point here is you might not be able to do as you say if you have someone making the decision that doesn't believe hin hunting, doesn't like you, doesn't like the color of your car.. Because you no longer have a right. You're only conditionally allowed on the whim of some official.. Perhaps that suits you, but it doesn't suit the majority of Americans. When you take the "right" out of the constitution which admittedly yours never had.. then you become the subject of whoever holds that power over you. A different way of doing government. A way we had a little fracas over called The Revolutionary War.. So you can understand that those of us with a strong sense of history value our rights.

But yes, "the Australian model" as I eluded is not that guns are totally outlawed. They are only subject. Subject to the opinion of someone not you.. without clear guidelines they must act under. Or at least the guidelines were not listed in your otherwise complete reference.

I find something interesting though. If one shows a need of target shooting or hunting they can obtain a centerfire rifle.. bolt action.. holds ten or less rounds. The basic function of a sniper rifle. There are some restrictions on cartridges though, .338 Lapua, .416 Barrett, and .50 BMG.. are restricted. Those are three fine sniper rifle calibers, but there are dozens of other ones equally effective. In the custom realm tens of thousands. And sniper rifles have the potential to do far more damage than assault rifles. So why push for control of one so heavily and not the other? I think two reasons. 1. Sniper rifles take far more skill to use effectively. 2. Sniper rifles also FUNCTIONALLY are the same as hunting rifles.. in the same way "assault rifles" are the same as recreational rifles. A gun is a gun. I suppose politicians don't want to touch that one.

Well, if you don't want to answer questions showing your knowledge of firearms.. how about a more open question. John Howard as stated in his autobiography "hates" guns.. a very strong emotion. Ever wonder where he developed this hate? And he states he "seized the opportunity with the Port Author massacre" to push through your restrictive gun control So one man with hate of the subject of a law.. admittedly took advantage of the people in writing new laws. Interesting. Our laws get their power from our constitution and our constitution is written to prevent one man from having such control over laws (something our President often needs reminding of).. As a people American's reject such power. My question: Do you think Australia's "conditioning" as "subjects" of the Queen is responsible for their.. well.. being okay with being controlled like that? Personally I haven't seen this trait in the Australians I've come to call friends.. but they don't belong to that vast majority who are okay with the current gun laws. In all seriousness, if you read through this thread I've become quite impressed with Australians. I'd hate to think they haven't outgrown the antiquated concept of a monarchy..

Ken.. notice I put "or even the Australia model.." Prefaced by "entirely banned?"

I've spent a lot of time studying the gun laws, gun control, circumstances, history, of many countries.. it sometimes helps to step out of a specific environment and look at others.

Can you get an AR-15 style rifle? How about a Ruger Mini-14? (Ar style rifle in sheeps clothing) Armalite AR-10? Or a M14? And can you shoot it on your own property without owning a gun club? And can you get handguns?

Tell us more about the secure storage..

If you want to talk about "gun control" in Australia Steve, then your questions are barking entirely up the wrong tree.The truth is that there is an entirely different ethos in play in Australia (stuff entirely seperate from legislation) when it comes to guns.There is an entirely utilitarian approach to gun ownership in Australia.

If one is a stock farmer in Australia then it is expected, and accepted, that you will own several firearms for the purpose of putting down animals that are terminally ill or injured.In addition these stock farmers also need to control feral animals on their properties such as pigs.Individuals are also employed specifically to hunt pigs and also kangaroos (when in plague proportions) to reduce their impact on grazing.So the rural parts of Australia (90% by land surface area) are full of guns.However, on visiting towns in these areas one will never see individuals carrying guns of any sort - it is just not part of the culture.

In general in urban areas of Australia (where 90% plus of the population of Australia live) it is neither expected nor accepted that law-abiding citizens would own a gun, never mind carry one around on their persons. In Australia if you are carrying a gun on your person you are either a policeman or a criminal.

One can also own weapons for the purpose of sport.Australia has many Olympic-medal winning marksmen.Major cities and largish towns will all have ranges and clubs.Hunting is also accepted both for sport and for the reasons elucidated above.

Nonetheless, there is absolutely no culture in Australia currently that regards gun ownership in general, never mind the right to bear arms, as constitutionally important. Guns are in widespread use in Australia yet there is no culture of owning and carrying guns as an extension of our personalities.The burning issues and questions that you are posing are just non things here in Australia. (If you want answers to the technical aspects of your questions then one or more government websites - that are excellent by the way - will almost certainly state the situation in plain English. I personally have no particular interest in checking.)

The only reason these issues are topical in Australia at all is because of the concern that we have for our American brethren and our outrage that yet another American community has been torn apart by another mass shooting.

So what you seem to be suggesting is that, when it involves gangs and desperate people, guns are a good thing ...?Just asking, because I'm puzzled by your defence of rampant (leading to inappropriately used) proliveration of guns, which would rather be, recreation?

BTW, a few clicks in Google reveals that a little over half of the gang related assaults and homicides in the USA are inter-racial, so I'm not sure which race and business activity statistics bracket you belong to that would explain your need to use a firearm for self-defence..., unless you only 'need' it for recreation. Annoying indeed.

Cheers,Bart

Hi Bart. A fine cold evening here.. Let's get you some answers, wouldn't want you to lose sleep wondering..

1. I think they're a good thing for our politicians in that it allows them to avoid facing a difficult subject. For instance, from the link Ken quoted: "from 1985Ė2000, 78% of firearm deaths in Australia were suicides" and "A 2010 study asserted that the gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides 74%, thus saving 200 lives a year."

You think WOW right? First, a really large portion of those terrible numbers being misused so often are from suicides.. a choice a free citizen should be allowed to make.. and in fact are. I've never heard of someone being charged for committing suicide. I'm a strong believer that any adult should have 100% free control over their own demise. There are many reasons someone might want to die that neither of us has any way of understanding. And I don't see it as our business. The second thing is "so sad, now 200 people a year either had to find a less convenient way to kill themselves.. or even more sad.. heartbreaking even.. is that they're still alive and unable to do so.

All I'm saying Bart is that depending how presented, some things can be either good or bad.. and politicians are not above taking advantage of the numbers. Heck, if not counting suicides in gun deaths any more would half of better the "killed by a mean looking gun" figure.. they might have to show more or better reasons to accomplish their agenda..

2. I no longer need to "defend" the right to self-defence. The Supreme Court of these United States has done that for us. Short of an amendment which SCOTUS would then be be obligated to defend.. the right to self-defence is a done deal. Personally I feel this is a natural right. I'm disappointed Australia doesn't recognize this as a "need" for owning a gun. I suppose then everyone would need one. You too. Do you think this means there is no right to self defence in Australia? How sad would that be. But to be clear, if you're comfortable with your hands, your camera, or your ability to talk your way out of harm then I fully support your choice to do so.

But yes, I enjoy the recreational aspects of owning firearms.. I have since I was a small boy. And my father and grandfather before me, and my three sons after. Absolutely. And for anything who has some unnatural fear of firearms or wants to try the recreational aspects.. contact a range or club near you and you'll find many willing to help. I'm more afraid of real threats. Spiders for example.

3. Sir, I don't need to justify my need for self-defence and either do you! You're free from that burden. Rejoice. But I'll share it with you anyway. I retired from the military and spent four years as a police officer in a big California city where I was directly involved with drug and gang control. I won't go into it further than that.. but there are some out of jail already, some still in it.. who present a direct threat to me and my family. Is that okay with you? But what's your bugaboo with recreational shooting? I still do some of that.. love it. Have you ever tried? Most love it right way, it's almost addictive. Give it a try.

A good question. Over half that figure as we've referenced in this thread elsewhere was from suicides.. and no one really wants to get involved with the choice of suicide where gun control is concerned.. the obvious answer is they push for my medical induced suicides which is another bag of worms.. so they hide in the gun stats. Almost all the other half is gang related which is directly tied to the war on drugs.. something else politicians don't want to talk about.

Start breaking down the numbers and you'll get really pissed off..

The 10,000 to 12,000 number is homicides. Suicides are not included in that number.

Guns are used for suicides more often than for homicides. I've refrained from discussing gun suicides in the context of gun control because I doubt that even the most strict gun control imaginable, that would be constitutional under the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court, would be effective in reducing suicides significantly. Even a single bullet gun, especially a caliber larger than a 22, is sufficient for a suicide. It appears that the possession of ordinary revolvers, shotguns and rifles (not including semi-automatics) is protected by the Second Amendment. (Semi-automatics may well be protected, too, but I'm taking the best case scenario for gun control.)

If you want to talk about "gun control" in Australia Steve, then your questions are barking entirely up the wrong tree.

Hi Tony -

Sure, let's explore your questions.

1. America has farmers and about the same 90% live in urban areas. We have the same needs..

2. "In Australia if you are carrying a gun on your person you are either a policeman or a criminal." No worries, some here would like that to be the case too. But it's not. Why it makes you either is kind sad.

3. "Neither expected or accepted." Why do you care so much about what other people expect or accept? I see self-defence as a personal right and a personal responsibility. I see what I carry on my person the same way.

4. "there is absolutely no culture in Australia that regards gun ownership in general, never mind the right to bear arms, as constitutionally important." Is this because it's not in your constitution and you've not had this right in such a long time that you've just accepted your fate?

5. "extension of our personalities.." I've never experienced such a thing here.. but then I tend not to think along those terms. I drive powerful cars and I've never bought the "extension of your penis" argument either. I simply love fast cars, my penis is fine thank you. I wonder if it's the same for those who accuse us of such?

6. "concern for our American brethen" I love this about you guys! You are so caring that it makes me feel warm all over. Thank you so much for your concern. Would you feel the same way if we got involved and started denigrating you personally, your way of life, your government, penis size, etc? I'm sure you would, I mean why take offence to someone so misguided right?

This "American community torn apart" stuff.. Let's get real. They're already asking the media to go home and have been for days. More trouble than they're worth.

We had a team bus crash a while ago and 30 something kids died.. ever hear about it?

A tornado wiped out town after town, tore them to the ground, killed dozens.. ever hear about them?

Steve you are making my argument very well.I put those observations down to show that there appears to be a massive gulf in thinking about gun ownership in Australia versus the USA.Your thinking personifies that gulf.

As for some of the other issues that your last post dragged into the debate well you asked for this.I happen to be an Intensive Care doctor (you didn't know that did you) who knows far better that you about iatrogenic (doctor-caused) harm because I deal with it in my ICU on a daily basis. I do regular battle with collegues about this issue (to the point where some of them wish they could put a bullet in me) and so am sometimes regarded as a polecat.

Also, although traffic-related injuries and deaths, in global terms are minimal in Australia - even one is too many.Additionally, my medical career started in South Africa where traffic-related injury and death is appallingly, obscenely, and criminally, high.That is not all.I witnessed, in battlefield-like conditions, the appalling carnage made possible by unrestricted access to weapons of any sort never mind those currently accepted as military grade weaponry.I have several late and lamented friends from South Africa who were trained Special Forces soldiers ("reccies") and policemen who carried guns all the time (especially when in civvies - and quite legally) who are all dead, killed by criminals, and had no chance despite their immense training and capabilities. Sadly them bearing arms contributed to their deaths since they all went for their weapons when caution would have been the better option or they were killed because they were found to be carrying weapons by the criminals despite their caution.

Unlike you, I will not speculate about your experiences, expertise, interests, and concerns, I will, however, put forward observations and opinions based on direct, and unfortunately very unpleasant, experience.

The 10,000 to 12,000 number is homicides. Suicides are not included in that number.

Guns are used for suicides more often than for homicides. I've refrained from discussing gun suicides in the context of gun control because I doubt that even the most strict gun control imaginable, that would be constitutional under the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court, would be effective in reducing suicides significantly. Even a single bullet gun, especially a caliber larger than a 22, is sufficient for a suicide. It appears that the possession of ordinary revolvers, shotguns and rifles (not including semi-automatics) is protected by the Second Amendment. (Semi-automatics may well be protected, too, but I'm taking the best case scenario for gun control.)

You're right. I should have picked up on that.

I typically refrain as well, unless I think they're using the overall number. And yep, it's hard to shoot yourself in the head twice.

The Supreme's did note there is room for local restrictions on certain firearms, but more than half of all firearms out there are semi-auto.. so I think some may try, but will fail to get exclusions.

IMO and others.. the reason the assault weapons ban only really banned bayonet lugs, collapsible stocks, etc.. and not semi-auto as a function.. is because of the raw numbers of semi-autos out there. And because police departments have approved them for 20-30 years for personal weapons (I switched from my S&W Model 686 six shot revolver to my Sig 226 as one of the first semi-auto approved classes on my department.. I think in 1983. There was a lot of resistance to them as duty guns mostly because of reliability, and some still thought the police would empty 19 rounds into the crowd like the police seem to do all too often in New York.. So far they've been proven to be highly reliable if properly maintained and gripped..), and even the military considers them safer and more effective for the lightest duties..

To outlaw a type of gun that comprises roughly 50%+ of the 300 million+ guns in America.. that would be the mass hysteria response they're trying to avoid. It's just not doable. So they outlawed bayonet lugs. Great. And some people lost sleep over the ban expiring.. like they were worried about being bayoneted to death.. Geeze..

But the anti-gunners are falling for it again. They don't want real change or improvement... if they did we'd have police or armed teachers in every school. What they want is symbolic. From a purely functional standpoint (the ability to put a round on target in a given time period) I'd estimate 90% of gun control measures are symbolic. This is why I'm trying to hard in this thread. If the people really want gun control, the they should get it, no matter how misguided I think they are.